Brown questions gun laws

[SecularMotion]

PITTSFIELD -- U.S. Sen. Scott Brown says it's important for states to re-evaluate their gun laws in the aftermath of a man's rampage that left six dead and many others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, injured, in Tucson, Ariz., on Saturday.

The junior senator from Massachusetts also said he doesn't plan to take extra security precautions.

"In Massachusetts, I know we have very strong gun laws. I've worked on them, I've supported them," Brown told reporters at a Pittsfield Rotary Club luncheon on Wednesday.

"So I'm sure Arizona and every other state is going to encourage their legislatures to look at those gun laws," he said, later adding, "I think each state should be able to go their own way when it comes to individual rights."


http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_17091451

[n2doc]

1. Cue the teeth gnashing from the tea partiers n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Save for an all out ban on guns, Gun laws would not have changed the outcome in Tuscon

Why is talking about addresing something in the wake of an event that had no bearing in the event?

[jody]

4. How would "an all out ban on guns . . . have changed the outcome"? Criminals don't obey laws. n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. I'm not sayinghe wouldn't have been able to get at a gun...

It jsut might have been so difficult that he would've turned to an easier solution...
I'm guessing that a little fertilizer & fuel or a speeding F150 would've put a bigger dent in that crowd than his Glock.

[Hoyt]

18. The right laws would have kept Loughner from buying a gun and assault magazine in November.

And the right laws, security, and punishment would keep a lot of folks from walking around in public with a gun.

[RSillsbee]

20. The right laws

And the right laws, security, and punishment would only stop those inclined to obey the law from walking around in public with a gun.

There, fixed it for you

[DonP]

21. The "Right Laws" do a great job here in Chicago

Tougher laws, that's the proven answer.

Not one gang member in Englewood, Pilsen or any of the other neighborhoods have any guns, I'm sure. Because Mayor Daley made sure we had the toughest gun laws in the country.

[jeepnstein]

22. And what would those laws have been?

He took a plead deal on a drug charge and got a diversion program. Then he dealt out of a criminal damaging rap the same way. Nobody seems to know if he'd ever seen a doctor for his increasingly erratic pattern of behavior. He was obviously mentally ill but his family didn't step up to the plate to get him any help for some reason. Now we're hearing that he'd been making death threats prior to the shooting but charges were not pursued.

I deal with mentally ill people all the time who eventually get tangled up with the law. A couple of them are quite dangerous. One, well, she was the closest thing to the living embodiment of evil I've ever seen. I'm betting quite a few of them were under a doctor's care but not flagged in NICS prior to them catching their first felony. Once they hit prison their condition takes a dramatic turn for the worse, go figure.

The mentally ill need our care. We need to care for them every bit as much as we need to take care they don't harm others. Unfortunately what we do in America all too often is just tell them they're on their own and then get annoyed when their behavior runs off the tracks. I have no problem with clearly identifying someone with a serious mental illness but we should then, as a society, accept the responsibility of helping a brother or sister in need.

[TPaine7]

23. + 1

[jody]

24. Please answer #22 or remain silent and acknowledge you don't have a clue. n/t

[RSillsbee]

19. Save for an all out ban on guns

Funny, the all out ban on murder didn't seem to have any effect

[jody]

25. Now RSillsbee, why do you use logic to rebut an outstanding rant? nt

[RSillsbee]

28. I don't know

I guess I wasn't thinking, I'm sorry.

If I must :sarcasm:

[geckosfeet]

3. MA has 3nd lowest gun fatalities per 100,000 of population in the nation.

Rhode Island (50) and Hawaii (51) are lower. Data from 2007.

statehealthfacts.org - Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2007


MA gun laws are NOT as strict as NY, NJ, CA and perhaps some others - certainly DC and Chicago if allowed to use municipal comparisons.

Once you get your license you can walk in and buy a gun with a little paperwork. Ammo is over the counter after the cashier sees your ID.

The biggest pain is that the MA is picky about what guns can be sold. They must be MA compliant. 30 round magazines are not on the list.


on edit: DC - with perhaps some of the most draconian gun laws (outright bans) has the highest fatality rate per 100,000. Maryland itself comes in at 22 from the top.

[jody]

5. OK but the issue is crimes involving firearms, not All "Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms" n/t

[pipoman]

6. Yet MA is #34,

RI is #11, and HI is #16 for violent crime. Vermont, one of the most lenient gun states in the nation is #2 for violent crime.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=117&cat=2

[geckosfeet]

9. Yes. Vermont. A hotbed of criminal activity. You have misinterpreted the data.

Using the statistics you cited, Vermont comes in at #50 on the list with 131 crimes per 100,000 population. When the page loads it lists states in alphabetical order. You must sort by clicking the little arrow thingies above the colum of data.

MA comes in at 18 with 457 per 100,000.

I would say this data very loosely cross correlates population and gun laws with crime.

[pipoman]

10. No

the stats for the most recent year, 2009, ranks MA as #34 for "Violent Crime Offenses Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants" ranked from low to high with 457/100k, Maine is the lowest (#1) with 119.8.

The conflation occurs when people fail to make a distinction between gun crime and over all gun usages, or for that matter worrying about "gun crime" to the exclusion of violent crime as a whole or even murder as a whole.

[geckosfeet]

29. I understand the dinstinction between violent crime and gun crime.

If you sort the data, highest to lowest, MA is 18 at 457 per 100,000. Vermont is 50 (131) and Maine is 51 (120).

This data in this report is a couple years old, but shows that aggravated assault is the lions share. There is no clear delineation for gun crime in this report.
Violent Crime in Massachusetts

In 2008, there were 29,204 reported violent crimes in the state (Figure 3). The majority of violent
crimes in 2008 were comprised of aggravated assaults (71 percent), followed by robberies (23 percent),
forcible rapes (6 percent), and murders and non-negligent manslaughters (0.6 percent).

Violent Crime in Massachusetts

Clearly, gun crime is merged into the data, making this a cross correlation of factors.

I would say that gun laws themselves certainly contribute and correlate to the level of gun crime. The absolute relationship is complex and difficult to determine. But any analysis would expect some relationship. The analysis may not set out to quantify the relationship, but the relationship must be presumed to be a possibility.

[pipoman]

15. The truth is that gun laws have little to do with violent crime

in fact even gun crime has been in constant decline nationally for 20+ years according to the Dept. of Justice. What has happened in that 20 years? Well, every year without exception the number of guns in private possession has increased by millions (14 million last year IIRC). Further in that 20 years we have gone from 3 states with concealed carry to 46 states, meaning there are literally millions more people carrying firearms in public every day. Firearms accidents have been in decline for near 40 years. I would be happy to post links to the stats later, I am off to work now.

[lawodevolution]

12. New Hampshire and Vermont that have almost no gun restrictions have much less gun violence and

violence overall than Mass.

[lawodevolution]

13. You ever wonder why gun control lovers like Rebecca Peters hate the free flow of information on the

internet and freedom of speech?

Look at what I found:

[pipoman]

7. Really?

"I think each state should be able to go their own way when it comes to individual rights."

I wonder if he feels this way about all "individual rights"?

[DissedByBush]

8. "I think each state should be able to go their own way when it comes to individual rights."

WOW!

Would he have thought Alabama should be able to go their own way in 1965?

[lawodevolution]

14. yes

[jody]

26. Why do you oppose inalienable/unalienable rights that Jefferson, Madison et al pledged their honor,

lives, and wealth to protect?

[DissedByBush]

30. Brown opposes them, I don't

He thinks states should be able to ignore constitutional rights, "go their own way."

[jody]

31. Inalienable rights pre-exist the Constitution and in no way depend upon it. Govt. must prove an

overwhelming social need if it can claim authority to infringe upon inalienable rights.

SCOTUS said in Heller, "We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed"

[DissedByBush]

32. Now read his statement

"I think each state should be able to go their own way when it comes to individual rights"

He thinks states should be able to restrict those inalienable, pre-existing individual rights when they want to.

[jody]

33. You're right, Scott Brown opposes individual rights and supports the divine right of government that

replaced the divine right of kings that the founding fathers and patriots fought to dethrone.

[lawodevolution]

11. "I think each state should be able to go their own way when it comes to individual rights."

The south agreed before the civil war.

[badtoworse]

17. Should states have that latitude with a woman's right to choose?

There are a number of southern and western states that would severely restrict abortion if that reasoning were to pass constitutional muster. You might call that sauce for the goose.

[jody]

27. Good point and what about GLBT rights and voting? n/t